Brands, breakthroughs and bias: Here's why you've heard so much about Sony recently

If it feels like we've been writing a lot about Sony recently, you haven't been imagining things: we've been writing about its products and technologies quite a bit. But there's a good reason for that – the company has simply given us a lot to write about.

A period of intense, sustained activity, set against a backdrop of relative inactivity from its competitors has seen Sony receive probably more coverage than any other brand.

Ever since it bought Konica Minolta's camera business, Sony has been trying to find a foothold in a market sector that's historically been dominated by two camera makers. Its first attempts were to crowd-out the shelves with 'me-too' SLRs. Actually, that's not quite fair, the a350 was pretty innovative, in its own way. But despite offering lots of models often at low prices, this didn't yield the desired results.

Sony's attempts at innovation don't start with the RX and a7 cameras, but the relentless pace of its updates are a relatively recent trend.

But Sony's more recent moves, particularly the embrace of full-frame mirrorless and 1" sensor compacts, along with numerous additional features arriving in the realms of video, sensor technology and autofocus, have included some significant steps forward for the industry. And ones that are relevant for a broad range of photographers.

This has left us with a lot of technology and features to write about. Sometimes this comes in the form of a standalone tech article, other times in the reviews themselves, as we try to explain the real-world benefits and shortcomings we've encountered while using them.

Of course we've seen this before: periods of innovation from various manufacturers as the industry grows and changes. The introduction of the first mirrorless camera by Panasonic, for example, or its subsequent improvements in video (we often joke that the launch of a GH series camera means we all have to learn more about film-making). Fujifilm was the first to offer on-sensor phase detection and, while divisive, its X-Trans color filter array and DR Modes have given us plenty to talk about.

Mirrorless cameras, as pioneered by Panasonic and Olympus have been the area with most innovation in recent years. Again, this has meant we've written about them a lot, as the technology has improved.

What's unique, though, is the continued drive, this sustained flood of products and of new technologies that Sony has recently been responsible for. And, more starkly, this has come at a time when the industry's largest two companies have been comparatively quiet. Over the past four years, Sony has released around 60% more new high end (>$1000) models than any of its rivals.

This has come at a time when the industry's largest two companies have been comparatively quiet

This has meant that we write a lot about Sony right now. Not because it's Sony, specifically, but because they're the company doing so much of the running at the moment. And of course, our coverage isn't always positive. Our job is to cover technology and innovations regardless of how well they perform, so in addition to being impressed by the capabilities of DRAM-backed Stacked CMOS sensors, we've also written about banding, striping, and work that still needs to be done on the menu systems.

Sony isn't the only brand innovating, of course. We continue to be impressed by Canon's Dual Pixel AF design, particularly in terms of the benefits it brings for video shooting, and Nikon launched the D850, arguably the best DSLR the world has seen. But neither brand is delivering the constant innovation that currently sets Sony apart right now.

This is to be expected: the dominant players in the industry will be keen not to change an apparently winning formula, while the insurgent newcomer needs to offer something suitably different to entice people away from the tried and tested 'safe' choice.

Canon didn't achieve its market dominance by chance. Cameras such as the EOS 5D and EOS 300D/Digital Rebel offered something none of its rivals did.

Looking back, we've been here before. Canon didn't achieve its recent market dominance solely by chance: a combination of investment in CMOS technology and aggressive pricing of its mass-market DSLRs played a big role. This combination gave it several years in which its cameras had a distinct edge over most rivals.

Similarly, Nikon made great strides forward around the time of the D3 and D300. These two cameras brought hugely improved autofocus as well as a move to CMOS sensors which greatly increased low light performance (and dynamic range, in subsequent iterations).

The long-expected thinning-out of the camera industry hasn't yet happened: there are still plenty of players in the market. The thing that's changed is that they're all competing for a slice of a much smaller pie than they were, just a few years ago. This is likely to mean more brands trying the aggressive, fast-iteration, constant innovation approach that Sony (and, to a lesser degree, Fujifilm) is taking. It's also unlikely that Sony can continue at this rate indefinitely: there's every chance that its strategy is to capitalize on being first mover by staking out as much territory as it can before everyone else responds.

Manufacturers are all competing for a slice of a much smaller pie

As the remaining camera brands fight for recognition and search for tech and features to distinguish themselves, we should have plenty more to write about. Especially if, as all the rumors suggest, Canon, Nikon or both end up introducing high-end mirrorless cameras in the next twelve months. After all, despite being well-entrenched in the DSLR market, they'll both be relative newcomers to serious mirrorless, so may feel the need to be more innovative than we've seen in a while.

Busy times, then. And we will cover these with the same vigor and enthusiasm we try to show for every innovative launch. Regardless of which name is on the front of the product.

Comments

I think that no one has a problem or two maybe with Sony, the opposite I would say, no matter what they actually say. More than that I think that everyone can understand more or less the historical view of digital photography. Explaining history sometimes may be necessary, but sometimes is justifying. Under this point of view I think that this article is justifying facts and figures. For some people this is useful for some not.I don't find this article useful at all, but it's a nice story anyway...

This article does lend itself to introducing a game of “Fantasy Camera” - build your ‘ideal’ camera by cherry picking from the current parts bin of all the manufacturers.

I’d have Canons dual pixel tech on a Sony full frame 42mp sensor but with the Sony A9 fast read memory buffer, Sony E mount, a mix of Sony AF & Nikon’s 3d tracking tech, a mix of Canon & Fuji handling (I like the Fuji dials with a locking pin that can be toggled on/off), Canon menu system (just because I’ve used Eos for 30 years up until getting an A7R3 end of last year), in a body the size of the A7R3 (with option of adding larger grip), with body durability (weather sealing) from Nikon/Canon, and maybe Olympus IBS.

Around 1985-7 there was a paradigm shift in the camera market. Minolta introduced the 7000 arguably the first SLR with a usable AF system across the range, and shortly after Canon launched their AF system answer in response, the Eos system.

I feel we are currently another paradigm shift period and maybe have been for a few years with another year or so to go. The shift from DSLR to Mirrorless.

Within a few years of the SLR AF paradigm shift, manual focus only SLR’s all but disappeared. Within a few years of the Digital SLR shift, film SLR’s disappeared. Within 5 years, I wouldn’t be surprised if DSLR’s disappeared, replaced by Mirrorless.

I remember these days quite well, here into Germany, when the Minolta AF Lenses & the 7000 came along, and everybody said "Autofocus?!" ;)

Minolta was being 2 years (almost) ahead of Canon, with their EOS 650 and AF, EF-Mount.

As a Nikon Repesentative being said, 100 MP FF DSLR are being possible, and i don't expect the DSLR crowd to fade that fast away, not within the next 5 years, but possible within the next 10 years.

Some folks, like myself, do have way delicate eyes, and an EVF is not an option, for sure. EVFs still are flickering, lagging, don't have a high enough pixelcount (would being interesting to see future 5 or 8 MP EVFs) color-tearing or false colors, and usually being grainy, due to amplification the signal, into low light scenarios.

Also, the Sony Z-Battery is a step into the right direction - but by no means comparable to the running time of a typical DSLR battery, which i can use for weeks, months, without recharging ever the battery. :-)

Marc, regarding batteries. All have a mAh rating so, on paper, all batteries with the same power rating should perform equally when subjected to the same drain on them. All is not equal, though, when it comes to comparing a dslr and a mirror- less camera. The mirror-less is effectively always in live preview mode, either by an EVF or screen. The dslr doesn't draw any power for viewing and this results in significantly less drain on the battery.

And why do you tell me this? ;) I do know..no offense. Whileas power varies much (usually between 1120mA to ~1600mA in terms of battery capacity, a EVF by design, consumes much more power, for display purposes.

An OVF of current generation is very low-power consuming, the OVF does cost need nothing, but the feature for showing the camera stats like aperture, iso, and other status parameters, is usually based nowadays on OLED tech, which consumes very little, neglible power therefore.

I've read onto the web, that ppl for instance aren't this happy with the A7 III EVF. It'll take some time, before the EVF tech does get significant better, >5 MP, and no flickering, grain, optical distortions at the very edges, and being much more life-life in terms of color accuracy.

EVFs in todays gear should being color-calibrated, like HighEnd Monitors. But unlike TFTs, i do think the producer of these are a few firms, like Sony, Sharp, etc..

I am an advanced compact camera user. I have taken my first steps to mirrorless camera. I took it to this year's New Years Eve's party. People with high end smartphones were taking better shots, then my mirrorless camera.

I hate my mirrorless camera. I hate the idea of carrying two lenses, just to cover the same range of a good compact camera.

I have seen sample images from compact (and mirrorless) cameras and manufacturer's seem to be doing funny thing to the colour. It seems they are adding a 'tint', as if looking through sunglasses. Those images have no bearing to real life.

I take 5000 photos on holiday, do I need to correct them all in Adobe, to get the original colour?

My old 5MP camera was taking more accurate shots.

Smartphones are doing a lot of processing, to get better shots from their small sensors.

I still want a good compact camera, but manufacturers are not going to make their compacts any better, if it eats into sales of their expensive kits.

Rick, I agree, that eventually mirrorless cameras will be replaced by something, just don’t see it being phones anytime soon.

Sure, phones are eating into compacts heavily at the moment, but i think it will be more than a few generations away before phones take over from enthusiasts mirrorless. For one reason, the sensor size, second the flexibility of changing lenses, third the ergonomics. One day in the future, they may get to the point where these items & others are mitigated in some way, but I think it is still a while off.

@LDunn1 - I think everyone (whether they want to admit it or not) agrees that mirrorless will eventually dominate the ILC market. But as far as paradigm shifts go, it's a very slow one. As you say, MF cameras disappeared within a few years of AF. Mirrorless ILCs have been around for 10 years now. I think it's going to be a while yet before DSLRs disappear.

Nice article, well written. And two of my all stars also being mentioned, Canon 5D and Sony R1.

Time travel back into 2005, the two most anticipated Cameras have been the Sony R1, and the Canon EOS 5D, when you've been serious about Photography. Luckily, i could afford the R1 into spring 2006, whereas i ever used it so, and still do...and the 5D a few years later, and also still being using it.

Both have been way long being superseeded by successors, but they still "get the job done" and both have some kind of unique look.

I won't depart from them, even it would being hard into some couple years, when there is no more internal years clock....so the EXIF would being wrong then.

Sony innovated right from the start of the digital camera evolution, let's say DSC-S70, S75...for instance, 717, their Mavica "floppy" cameras, and many others before, and after the mentioned cameras....the A850/A900 FF DSLRs, have been designed by Minolta, but came under the Sony brand then...because...

...Sony aquired Minolta back into 2006....and the R1 didn't sell well, mainly because for its unique design, and it was also not cheap for 999$ into the beginning...but the Lens was/is excellent for its (almost) APS-C bridge class.

The Sony A100 DSLR competed with the Pentax K-10D/Samsung GX-10, Nikon D80 and Canon EOS 400D offerings, back into 2006. Whileas the ISO 100/200 IQ was very good, it suffered from too much digital noise from ISO 400 on, the same like the D80 Nikon....Canons 400D was being a bit more balanced for >400 ISO back then, whileas the Nikon D80 was the most expensive one of this 10 MP DSLR Trio.

Much changed since 2006, but even nowadays, one can have fun with old(er) gear, and by looking, how much IQ one can squeeze out of this older tech, with current software & algorithms. I do enjoy my older gear, and don't need the latest & greatest. It would be enough, to buy a new camera one or twice within a decade for myself. A7 here is my "newest" :-)

Marc, as one who also bought into the R1, I now have two, the W/A and Tele converters, and the bespoke flash unit. Yes, they were seen as expensive in their day, but you should check out DPR's own review where the price is compared to getting the same optical performance covering more or less an equivalent focal length, with the Canon outfit you'd need. On this basis, the R1 was seen as positively cheap. In fact, DPR concluded that the R1 was worth it for the lens alone.

That it didn't sell as well as it could (or should have done) was down to the plummeting price of entry level dslr's; I think it was Canon who first broke the $1,000 price point. Reflex cameras, film or digital, have always been promoted over any other as the one you should have if you want to call yourself a photographer, despite the fact that for many they were too over the top.

I used my R1 last year for a concert while my main camera was in the shop. I got more than acceptable results, but with a whole lot more effort (and misses). Outdoors, or with better than super-low light, the old R1 still works quite well.

@guyfawkesI only bought the R1 because of 2 reviews, the DPReview, which said the lens is worth the price alone, and the imaging-ressource review, which clearly showed the lens quality. :-)

i do love my R1, and still using it into 2018. :-) Its mostly being used for (only) static objects, especially statues, and architecture photography - whereas i do think, the lens still excels, at low ISO (i use mostly 160-200, but up to 400, and with ETTR technique sometimes) The lowest price 2nd Hand into Germany was being arounf 75-80 EUR, into decent condition, with all accessoires. :-)

Another lens, which is way cheap, is one of my fave lenses onto my 5D, it's the EF 28-70 3.5-4.5 II lens, because it's way small & light, does have a metal mount, sluggish AF and mediocre build, but is small & light, IQ is better than....

I do have 2 samples into mint condition, perfect on the 5D. Also have the 28-70 2.8L USM, 24-105 F4L USM. I can tell this 28-70 II is way good, especially for 40-50 EUR onto Fullframe...there isn't a good, cheap AF Zoom like this for such little money into the Nikon Lineup, sad, but true...

Hi, Marc. Thanks for the link re the ETTR technique. This is something that I wasn't aware of but it does tie in with a thought I had regarding shooting high ISO (normal setting) in daylight. I discovered that noise was diminished a lot compared to high ISO shooting in low light levels and I realised it had something to do with saturating the sensor as compared to the gain being turned up under low light levels.

Noise with the R1 above, say, 400, will be perceived a problem compared to today's cameras, but it was very respectable at launch.

What I need to establish to my own satisfaction is whether shooting at 1600 ISO with +2 exposure compensation is better than shooting natively at 400 ISO with +0 compensation. Both cause the R1 to give the same overall exposure. What will be better is if in my personal experiment going the ETTR at route at 1600 ISO produces superior results to 400 ISO.

Not to be rude but I own the camera and that lens (and others) and what's the point of a portrait with the eye in focus and a blurry rest of the head?

If the camera is indeed struggling at such a shallow depth of field (and you are aware that no other camera in the world even comes close for eye af tracking right) I have to wonder if this is really even an issue.

Just because you "can" do something doesn't mean you should. Very few pro head shot photographers anywhere in the word go for such a blurry look. Smearing away all detail isn't trendy. Shoot 2.8 or longer and tell a story about the subjects face.

Remember it's called a "head shot"..... Not eyeball shot. Are you telling everyone on the forums, the deal breaker for you is..... Drum roll.... Eyeball photography?

I guess the reason for getting the eye sharply in focus, irrespective of how sharp the rest of the head is, is because when we look at people face to face we generally look each other in the eye, and we are comfortable with this. Consider how unnerving it is when people don't look you in the eye and, say, keep looking at your hair, chin or ears.

Also in portraiture if the eye/s are not sharp, we perceive the image as very poor. The soul is seen through our eyes, not our chin. :D)

It makes me wonder a little bit though. Sony, as you say, is a lot in DP news because they etc etc. The Leica CL, a unique Leica (APSC ) item, still no review. Already asked some time ago DPR staff when we may see/expect such a review. No answer till today. I'll try again, when dear team....?

Sigma cameras are almost never reviewed by DPR either. Although they share sensors that are different than all others of the croud there are no in depth reviews. The DPxQ compact cameras still wait for a proper review.

I often come here looking for a Nikon mount lens review and all I find is a sample gallery that frankly is not helpful. This will be an important lens that has generated a lot of interest elsewhere.

However, there will be multiple articles on camera releases and particularly Sony camera releases.

The other thing, which I guess is subjective, is that when ever I go to the shop to actually try a Sony body after being caught up in the hype they have real isssues.

Last time was the a6500, tried in John Lewis:

It felt weird to hold.It was slow and unresposive generally.The autofocus acquisition speed in AFS mode was TERRIBLE. I had my gx80 Panasonic with me and it grabbed focus essentially instantaneously in the same environment.The IBIS was surprisingly poor, especially for video.

Go to 500px or wherever, nearly all the great photos are shot with Canon or Nikon. Poor guys, don't they know the a7iii has eye af that precisely locates the area just above the eye and focuses on it 😈

@ Sion H: Five minutes in a shop, and you know how a camera is to work with on a daily basis?

And your conclusion is "Poor guys, don't they know the a7iii has eye af that precisely locates the area just above the eye and focuses on it" ... and you don't even have a camera with eye focus, and that even force you to calibrate every single lens to get reasonable sharp AF results ...

By terrible, I mean it is the slowest S-AF acquisition speed I have tried since the Sony a6000. I couldn't use it for candid portraiture. Just too slow. Probably OK for landscape / cityscape though: as long as there are not planned renovation works :-)

@Magnar - what's to get? I put it in single point AF-S mode pointed it at something far away (well around 7m), then something near (2m say) and waited for the beep. Compared to my gx85 it was atrocious doing *exactly the same thing*. This was with native glass.

I'm no fan of mirrors. I hate calibrating lenses as it plays straight into my OCD wheelhouse and Nikon is far from perfect (my d750 shutter failed at 14000 actuations), but these reviews we see of Sony just bang on about the numbers and the great sensors.

The reality: studio cameras that struggle to focus f8 - f11. Landscape cameras that break if they get wet and cameras famed for AF tracking that have almost broken AF-S.

@ Sion H: Using lower apertures than phase detection autofocus can take, and then expect contrast focus alone to work snappy? Well, hardly any fault with the camera (I know the A6000 well). Just a limitation with the AF system for mirrorless cameras, to avoid unsharp pictures due to focus shift when stopping down.

@Magnar - I don't see why focus shift cannot be corrected for in firmware. Just a LUT for goodness sake. Also, it's not just a mirrorless issue. All phase detect AF systems suffer from it. Has made me want to throw some old Nikon primes out of the window.

Manufacturer paying for the reviewers’ expenses associated with testing their equipment in order to allow the reviewers to draw and report their own conclusions is a much more honest practice than the manufacturer simply pounding unsuspecting consumers with banner ads, such as, “M50 - Brilliant 4k” (that’s a real ad I saw on this site). I’d rather DPReview participate in more of the former and allow less of the latter.

@PhotoDiod: In a very roundabout-spin way... you wrote that you prefer not knowing for certain, when someone is advertising to you, than being certain that they are. Looks like "you've got" 3 "likes" so far... so good for you!

"Viewfinder resolution on the low side;Lacks DSLR feeling of 'immediacy' for controls and menus;Continuous AF at smaller apertures can result in hunting or focus failure;Only one card slot supports the faster UHS-II format;Some lenses may result in 'striping' in images containing flare;Lackluster touchscreen experience;Moiré artifacts may be a problem;Weather-sealing doesn't appear to be as robust as competitors;Unintuitive video autofocus;Some buttons are too small and could use more tactile feedback;No in-camera Raw processing;8-bit internal and external video capture limits Log footage flexibility"

It could be true you guys are right, and Sony's been "in the news" more than others, so you're reporting. No problem.

But when you quickly push not only a RX 10 IV video (reviewed back in Nov 14) AND out of nowwhere publish a 24-105 gallery (also released in later 2017), I guess it sort of erodes your claims of impartiality*. Maybe chalk that up to some bad strategic planning.

*I'm not claiming you're not impartial, and frankly I don't mind reviewers having opinions, but just sayin'....perception is everything.

It's because of Kando Trip 2.0, a big event where Sony gave courses and shooting scenarios to journalists and "influencers". It happened last week, and DPR probably seized the chance to do more coverage on Sony products that were pending.

Rather obviously "stung" by criticism of bias, the DPR mgmt. feels the need to write a letter of apology or explanation or....use whatever label you like. Hardly professional. If you are generally perceived as doing your unbiased best, you would stand by your guns and not broach the subject at all. Clearly you feel the heat. Improve your performance. Or accept that DPR may be a part of a marketing organization, and let it go at that.

Let's face it, you would have slammed them no matter what they did. It's the "damned if they do, damned if they don't" tactic. Frankly, I appreciate that they addressed these concerned. It's in the spirit of transparency, listening to their readers, and fostering open communication.

Yes Richard. We all know how you feel about Sony. You also feel the need to write an article about why you and DPR love Sony so much. Fine. No problem. There is a lot to love.But what you really need to do is write a retraction on that XH-1 review, or at least apologize for getting it so wrong. Greg https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

I haven't read the post, but to me the reason for hearing about Sony a lot lately is because it always seems to be on DPR's front page every day or somebody adds another post about Sony in the MFT forum.

Because here you are, insisting on some kind of editorial impartiality, just below a "what camera should I buy" call-to-action with links straight to amazon, surrounded by frame of user-tracking adtech, sticking calls-to-action everywhere I go on the web should I make a fateful click, here.

This whole website is structured straight out of ad-tech marketing 101. The reviews are all multi-page calls to Amazon sales links. And the forums? That's a massive, crowd-sourced Google search footprint of sales enthusiasm you didn't have to buy.

And Amazon plays this exact model with other product categories, too--let's all wave to your marketing cousins "reviewing" books over at Goodreads.com.

Don't read me wrong: none of this is intrinsically a "bad" thing. But it's marketing, not journalism. You're a camera salesperson, not a reporter. (And it's OK to be a camera salesperson.) Your credibility rides on acknowledging THAT, not insisting otherwise.

I mean, I get it why you're cynical. "Journalism is marketing and marketing is journalism" is an attitude borne of marketers constantly trying to sell on journalist credibility, and journalists constantly compromising said credibility for marketing economics.

But there's plenty of journalism left in this world that hasn't taken an economic compromise. And there are plenty of successful marketers who haven't tried to claim "journalistic credibility."

In short, you're proposing an either-or that doesn't have to be. It's a false binary. I think DPReview can be better--there are just too many examples out there that contradict your idea that it's this way or the highway. So I suggested another way. (Namely, stop pretending you're journalists, Richard et al., and you'll sell even more cameras without having to justify yourselves every other day.)

Yup, I chose *something better* than this, and I don't believe that doing so must lead to "nothing."

Fundamentally, we need to understand that Richard & co.'s real job is to generate sales enthusiasm--it's not to report on what's happening in the camera industry. If the later were true, DPReview would have sources at all the companies; they'd be publishing scoops; they'd be telling us the story of Sony marketing junkets--how they work, how they're conceived, how they're setup--not merely using them to produce sales-fluffing content for Sony's latest gear.

DPReview is to the camera business what Variety is to Hollywood, or what Vogue is to fashion. Variety exists to put butts in theater seats, not to tell anyone what's actually happening in the movie biz.

So my suggestion is that DPReview embrace that role, not fight it. Be camera sales people. Be unashamedly enthusiastic. Don't pretend impartiality--be partial. If it's all advertising, make it GREAT advertising. Vogue is GREAT advertising for fashion, no pretense.

I'm serious about this, Richard & co. You guys should be flipping through the September issue of Vogue for the photography, anyway--but while you're doing it, notice the utter lack of journalistic pretension.

Instead, Vogue SELLS what the advertisers want to push. If Balmain is buying September pages, then that's what the editorial photographers are shooting. And they make an unabashed art of it, which again, as photographers, should speak to you all on a few levels.

My point is, if Sony is buying adds here, then by god, SELL Sony. You're just "reporting on innovation?" Pffft. That's weak sauce. Channel your inner Anna Wintour and just come out with it: "WE LOVE SONY THIS MONTH," and then give us a gorgeous, glorious, Sony photo extravaganza.

Here's what'll happen: Nikon will want it next. You'll sell more cameras AND get better engagement.

Since you're accusing DPR team of bias and impartial coverage based on profit (which is utter non-sense): again as asked before, what's the alternative for creating a DPR organization that can still sustain its workers' paychecks with no bias whatsoever, real "journalism" not marketing as you put it? Perhaps you have a way you can make us both happy!

MiraShootsNikon, according to your logic, all media content that generates ad revenue or commissions is "sales" in its substance? Thousands of artists, directors, dancers, youtubers and, yes, journalists would disagree. If that is not your premise, then you offered no factual evidence that DPR writers inherently engage in sales and, consequently, the rest of your conclusions are simply a matter of perspective. What you call "pretension" is conviction in somebody else's view. What you call "honesty," others call New York-style cynicism feeding on nihilism. You seem to be fascinated by Vogue--some wouldn't touch it with a long stick. Pushing everybody to adhere to the lowest denominator does not "maketh" one a trendsetter.

"My point is, if Sony is buying adds here, then by god, SELL Sony. "I think this summarizes your point and it's clearly a false dilemma. Most news organizations out there are advertising based, especially online ones. It's hard to operate on a donation based or subscription based model with no ads (a bunch of magazines have stopped printing).

However, this does not mean that articles have to be positive toward advertisers or change based on which one pays more.

A B&W picture is being painted here.. as if to question if DPR is completely biased OR is completely objective. It is neither. There is a whole grey area when "journalism" and advertising meet... especially in a review site, that is paid for by the manufacturers that are being reviewed.

I wrote in my first post that DPReview should simply acknowledge that it is a marketing enterprise, and then proceed to create GREAT marketing without having to plead every two weeks that we respect them as the journalists they obviously aren’t.

I’ve now suggested no fewer than four times that, were they unencumbered by the need to insist they aren’t marketers, DPReview might be free to make some extraordinarily creative and effective content. Better shoots. More sponsored trips and tutorials. That’s just the start.

There’s nothing “mythical” about effective maketing press. As I said above, Variety has been doing it in Hollywood for a century. Arch Digest does it for the interior design economy. And yes, Vogue does it for fashion (and pointing this out does not make me “obsessed” with it, @PhotoDiod.)

If the folks here felt free to really run with marketing money and messaging, we’d get far more creative, engaging results.

In the article, they clearly point out "why" Sony is shared and talked about so much.

What I think you are confused about is the simple fact that ALL....and yes I mean ALL media is a "marketing enterprise." Even if companies don't sponsor the media producers.....its still marketing.

What you should do to back up your claims is "prove" that dpreview has Bias because of their involvement with major companies. But you really can't because over the years Dpreview has been very detailed in their "non-bias" reporting of products and gear.

It's not about what I want. It's about what DPReview should want, if they're interested in doing what they are paid to do--namely, direct high-quality camera sales traffic to Amazon.com.

We're having this conversation only because I suggested that the article above is *unsuccessful* in its attempt to justify all this talk of Sony as "journalism."

Proof of DPReview's bias is literally everywhere you care to look. Let's start with the way *every single article* is presented, either as a derivative of a sales call to action, or a funnel to it. What's at the end of every single page of every camera review? Amazon links to purchase the camera reviewed. What's right above this very article in eye-catching blue? Links to buy the best camera (which is now a Sony A7.3)! Everything that's written is a direct pointer to or from a purchase link.

Now you say "all journalism is marketing," but when I look at articles in the ad-supported Wall Street Journal . . . (continued next post)

(continued from above) . . . when I look at articles in the ad-supported Wall Street Journal, I notice that the articles *are not* structured as pointers to purchase links related to the matters they discuss.

When the WSJ tells you about the violence yesterday on the Gaza-Israeli border, the article *is not* structured as a call to action for you to buy something or donate something related to the conflict, there. Sure, there are advertisements on the WSJ website and in print, but the organization actually exercises the principles of editorial independence @JakeY pointed out, above. The writing's purpose is to inform, not to push you from one sales link to another.

DPReview doesn't currently exercise those principles. How do I know? Because there's *always* a sales link to buy the very thing they're writing about, above and below every article. Because the site is structured to scroll you to those links as you begin or read down the content, which itself is designed to end linked.

I don't care if Sony "is on a roll" or not. I don't care about Sony. I like recent Sony cameras and shoot one, but they're a giant faceless corporation and can go F themselves, or not, for all it matters to me.

Meanwhile, you're trying to insist that DPReview cannot "be" any other way than it currently is, and man, that is just not true.

All the time they spend fighting with readers upset that one camera brand is over-represented, or another poorly tested, or a third not handled with proper "enthusiasm" . . . well, that's "engagement," yes, but is it the kind that sends buyers to Amazon with their credit cards handy? NO!

If DPReview simply dropped the pretense of impartiality, an entirely different, entirely more positive, entirely more effective interaction with readers would be possible. (And, just a little reminder: we KNOW DPReview-as-journalism is a pretense because of the way the site structures all of its content as a sales call to action.)

See, here's the "mystical" solution that Variety, Vogue, Arch Digest, and so many others have discovered: if you don't insist that you're an "unbiased journalist" while the entire structure and bearing of your publication screams you aren't, then your readers don't chide you for hypocrisy.

"You're biased!" the odd one shouts. "Yes, I am." you respond. The end.

Then, you're free to market in the most creative ways your organization can muster. You don't have to worry about principles of editorial independence. And your readers won't expect you to. If you want to talk about Sony for a month straight, you can. If you don't want to talk about Pentax until they pay, then you don't have to.

Think about what DPReview sample galleries could look like if every single one were funded by a camera manufacturer. Think about what the tutorials could look like if Sony or Canon or Adobe just came right out and paid for them, participated in them.

Mira, I said "fascinated," not "obsessed." And you have only confirmed that in your subsequent posts. You seem to believe that Vogue's content is inherently better. It is not. Glitzier is not better. And calling themselves salespeople will not result in better content -- only nauseating, like Vogue, and with no room for your or my comments.

Well Mira, you did your best to get the DPReview writers to more honestly admit what they are doing every day, everywhere on this site. You may have got a few of the strategic thinkers, thinking. Realistically, this site is not just a place for a bunch of gear nerds to chat about camera gear. Some of that lurks in every forum, but the DPReview wrapping is pure unadulterated sales and marketing. I know that and take it into account when visiting to dig up some of the geek insights about some photography issue or other. I don't know why DPReview is ashamed about what they are doing. As for me, I am capable of sorting marketing from substance -- heck we all live in the great age of infotainment for the purpose of generating sales. If we fell for every smooth 'fact sharing' marketer we would all be flat broke. You have it right, Mira.

MireShootsNikon - I think you have a rather narrow view of what constitutes journalism and an over-broad idea of what counts as marketing.

You're quite right, we're not investigative journalists. The industry is almost wholly based in Japan and a culture of secrecy prevents anyone cultivating sources effectively. Sadly (from the perspective of this former news reporter), the internet doesn't value you calling to try to get an inside perspective: other sites report a launch, YouTube people make their video and the story is dead by the time you've been told 'we haven't got anything else to say.'

However, our job isn't sales promotion. We don't see Amazon sales figures and they're not a metric that's included in measuring the business' success. As an editorial team we're solely assessed on traffic: encouraging people to read and to return. The prime motivation from which is to produce more content people want to read.

DPReview (like most camera websites) has always been funded by advertising and click-through links. We make no claims to being a non-profit, and the costs have to be paid for somehow. This was just as true when DPReview was Phil and Jo as it is now. Obviously since Amazon bought the company, most of the click-through links have been to them.

However, that's the funding model of most editorial magazines, newspapers and websites. Ultimately advertisers will only advertise if we have readers, so it makes much more sense for us to focus on the readers and their needs and interests. If we focused on the advertisers' interests, we'd lose everything.

So the 'Call to action' at the top of the page isn't the result of Amazon telling us to do it, by the way. It's not even because we want people to buy cameras. It's because a significant chunk of our readers have (repeatedly) told us "you don't tell me which camera I should buy," which is a major shortcoming in a review site.

Obviously our business and our industry benefits if people buy cameras, but that doesn't mean we're part of the camera makers' marketing efforts, because we also do our best to puncture their hyperbole.

We're not a bunch of ex-marketing students, drilled to hit targets, we're a bunch of camera geeks and photographers trying to produce things we think you'll want to read and watch. That's the job.

I'm not saying we always get everything right, I'm not saying that we're innocents doing this for the love of the job and the good of the people. But I, for one, would not be interested in working for the marketing outlet you suggest we should become.

Richard, it's kind of you to take a moment to address my concerns. Thanks.

But you haven't answered my criticisms. Here's the problem in a nutshell: if the many sales "calls to action" above, below, and directly related to every article you post here are *not* something you want, why are they still a part of the site?

You say your only goal is to provide well-trafficked content. But friend, it just so happens that all of your well-trafficked content is structured as a marketing funnel to purchase links. That structure is *not* a universal feature of ad-supported journalism, in part because of the credibility problems it generates. It's perfectly reasonable for me to ask how I can trust your impartiality when everything you write pushes me directly toward tracked links to buy the thing you've just written about. You won't find that structure on the Wall Street Journal, or the NYT, or a huge number of ad-supported journalistic enterprises, as I suggested above, for these reasons.

(Continued, from above.) Don't read me wrong: I appreciate your perspective. I do. But you can't look at this website--a masterpiece of modern adtech structure and design from head to toe--and tell me, with a straight face, that Amazon isn't trying HARD to sell me the very thing you're writing about, whenever you're writing.

Or, If that weren't the case, you'd have no problem removing the direct, related calls to action above and below every article. You'd have no problem removing the web tracking calls from said links.

You say that you included a buyer's guide because people asked you to. OK, but an informative buyers guide needn't link out directly, at the base of every page, to a tracked purchase link for that product from a specific vendor. You could just post your recommendations, and then let your readers decide, themselves where to make their purchases.

My point is that a specific recipe of aggressive adtech is a big, undeniable part of what's happening, here.

(Continued--last one, I promise.) There are *many* ways for advertising to support journalism without opening obvious and legitimate credibility questions. I was stunned to read that you find my views of marketing and journalism "narrow," when you're the one who's regarding DPReview's specific and problematic structure as the only way your brand of journalism might be supported.

As I've suggested above, I don't accept that. The web is rich with profitable, advertiser-supported journalistic properties big and small in which content is not positioned to direct sales of specific matters discussed.

The issue here is not whether you'd rather work as a journalist or a salesperson: you're already a salesperson. You're already writing the Vogue or Variety of the photography business. DPReview's structure--aggressive adtech, calls to action--already make it a "marketing outlet." If that stays, the only question is how effective a marketer you care to be.

I'm frankly amazed that you might consider our structure to be a masterpiece of anything. I mean no disrespect to our developers, but I suspect anyone with experience of 'adtech' as you call it (that's a new term to me), would disagree. I think you give us too much credit.

My point is also that including 'buy here' affiliate links at the bottom of the page has been a feature of the site for much longer than it's been Amazon owned. They've been there the decade plus that I've worked here. I just assumed everyone else ignored them, too.

Whether it's the only way the site could be funded, I've no idea. It's the way most gear sites are funded (confirmed by a quick glance at Imaging Resource, for instance). From what I've heard other people in the industry say, it's not a very effective way of supporting a business anymore. Again, I don't know the figures: traffic is the metric I'm familiar with.

Most websites I visit are desperately trying to find ways to support themselves, so I have to question whether there are easy alternatives.

We have no incentives to sell one product over another and no incentive to sell any products at all. So no, we're not sales people. Equally, the best way to destroy the site would be to try to be marketers.

The other post who advised cynicism is absolutely correct. ALL sources, should be treated with caution until you've been able to assess our credibility. I don't expect anyone to trust me, just because I say so. But I ask people to read our words and judge them against their own experience, rather than seeing affiliate links and assuming we're just trying to sell you something.

@MiraShootsNikonIn case it's not clear, I'm not in support of your original argument (at least my interpretation of it). It seemed to be suggesting advertising based media should be focused on selling the products of advertisers. Later points clarified you are talking about "adtech" (basically the auto-linking of products to purchase pages).

That kind of autolinking exists in many sites as a revenue generating device and I don't see how it will introduce brand bias in this context. They get the same money whether you buy a Sony camera or a Canon or a Nikon.

As for articles recommending certain cameras, that's pretty much expected for a review/buying advice website. The site would be pretty useless if all they did was to be "informational" (we can get the same information from manufacturer) and doesn't end with a recommendation. People come here for some analysis and opinion.

@Richard, I'm worried this conversation is going to get in you trouble, which is not my intention.

If I were the Amazon person charged with "owning" DPReview, it would bother me IMMENSELY that one of the property's chief voices assumes viewers just "ignore" the site's various means of monetization, and claims to do so himself. That's dangerously close to advocacy.

Meanwhile, you cast your job of maximizing DPReview's traffic as if the possibility of that traffic flowing into Amazon sales pages were immaterial. If that were true, what does Amazon get from its DPReview ownership?

Did Amazon buy DPReview for some reason other than customer draw? Was it a charitable purchase?

You have the world's most obvious possible incentive to sell product, Richard: your paycheck comes from straight the world's largest camera retailer!

I'll cut to the chase, here, and then leave you alone: your points read to me like rhetorical compartmentalizations that don't hold water if you're a DPReview reader rather than a DPReview writer. Mira notices the site is structured with "according to Hoyle" marketing moves and calls? Well, you're too modest to believe or notice it. Mira wonders why Amazon would want DPReview if not for its capacity to build Amazon sales traffic, qualified buyers, and effective conversions? Well, you just cover cameras--the rest is for someone else to worry about.

And that's fine, Richard--honestly and truly. All I'm asking is for you to see and consider how your writing and your coverage fits the bigger picture your readers see: your articles, encrusted by a frame of aggressive adtech. Your articles, published by an Amazon property.

DPReview is the internet's largest media property covering the camera biz, which happens to be owned by the world's largest camera vendor, featuring ad tech and direct sales links exclusively to that vendor. You don't consider yourself a salesperson? Fair enough, but somebody at Amazon certainly does--or at least they saw the potential when they bought your site!

Thank you, again, Richard, for taking so much time and care to consider what I've been saying--as always, it's a pleasure to talk with you and all of the DPReview staff!

You have as much information about why Amazon bought DPReview as I do, to be frank. I believe they bought a diverse selection of sites with good traffic, around the same time (including IMDB, a little earlier, for example).

However, on a day-to-day basis, and having worked for a series of other publishers before this, it feels more like an independent blog than it does the marketing machine that you imagine. A big blog, certainly, but still essentially a bunch of geeks and photographers trying to create a website that's useful and interesting to the most possible people.

And yes, a commercial entity, like pretty much any ad-supported magazine or website. And I'd hope that anyone from Amazon reading this wouldn't be too scandalised by the idea that most people ignore online ads.

My only word is that I agree with Mira regarding the potential of DPREVIEW: if I am to buy some new photographic gear first I go HERE to check the review of that specific gear. So here is far more than just an enthusiastic bunch of photographers writing a blog.....

"The introduction of the first mirrorless camera by Panasonic, for example, " This statement is a little confusing...The R-D1 by Epson was the first mirrorless interchangeable lens camera which was released in 2004. Panasonic didn't release a mirrorless (the DMC-G1) until 2008.

Secondly, the other hallmark characteristic of "mirrorless" cameras-- besides not having mirrors-- is TTL (through-the-lens) viewing. All "mirrorless" cameras have no mirror and do have TTL viewing. Rangefinder cameras fail both criteria. They have mirrors, and they don't have TTL viewing. With rangefinder cameras, you frame the image through a separate viewing window; you don't actually use the lens to frame the image. In the case of mirrorless cameras, you obviously use the lens to frame the image.

So by your logic is the X-Pro2 with the EVF turned off not a mirrorless camera? The whole post is about digital mirrorless cameras which refers to the shutter mechanism and the fact that it doesn't have a reflex mirror like an SLR. Also, by this same logic you could say the Olympus E-330 is a mirrorless camera, but it isn't - at it's heart, it is a DSLR.

@mbike999 - The X-Pro2 isn't a rangefinder. It doesn't have a rangefinding mechanism. Therefore, no mirrors. And yes, the X-Pro2 is capable of TTL framing. Therefore, it meets the two hallmark characteristics of a mirrorless camera.

"the whole post is about digital mirrorless cameras which refers to the shutter mechanism."

Mirrorless cameras have shutter mechanisms too. It's just that their shutter mechanisms stay open while framing, and only close down at the time of shooting (slow-mo video of the shutter here):

That's another way that "mirrorless" cameras differentiate themselves from rangefinders. Rangefinders have shutters that are closed all the time, and only open up at the time of shooting. As you can see from the video of the X-Pro1 shutter in action, the shutter remains open and only moves into place when you take a photo. This definitely makes it a mirrorless camera: no shutter blocking the sensor while framing/viewing.

So it doesn't meet the *both* the hallmarks of a mirrorless camera: TTL viewing and lack of mirrors. It has TTL viewing, but it doesn't lack mirrors. Also, there is a shutter that is constantly blocking the image sensor, which is also a big no-no for mirrorless cameras. For all these reasons, I would not ever call the E-330 a mirrorless camera. It's simply a DSLR with a porro mirror system.

I call for a truce, your argument is fair, for saying something like the R-D1 or Leica M is not a "mirrorless" in the fact that it uses a mirrored range finder for the focus mechanism. It's surely a different beast. But again, I'm under the school of thought that mirrorless implies a camera without a reflex mirror or pellicle mirror. The point is the article could have been more clear in saying Panasonic introduced the first digital mirrorless interchangeable lens camera with an EVF.

The article is about why Sony is getting so much attention. Yet 99% of the innovation is on the sensor front. Theres no new innovation to speak of on the body or function. Its menu is still a mess. They just shove every known feature available in their bodies and call it a day. If anything I feel Panasonic has been quite innovative and steive to something different and new. From 4k video, 4k and 6k photo, DfD and etc. 4k video has proliferated throughout the industry. What exactly has Sony contributed? Again, its sensors are great and that's due to the state of the camera market where it just doesnt make sense for anyone else to own a fab and get a return on their investment.

Hmmm how about slt tech that allowed real time live view phase detect AF, EVF (This could be a whole section all on its own), Focus peaking, zoom focus, clear image zoom, some of the highest fps years before the competition.. ala a77 2010 12fps....Hell Canon and nikon were still under 6fps back then...XAVCs Video Codec, I could go on, but I don't think you really want to talk about Sony's innovations.

I do not think just putting out more new bodies qualifies as a good thing. I would say that the fact that Sony's new bodies are good and have some advantages is a better thing.

That said, the wait for a Nikon D850 is still 4 months. Nikon was in first place in more camera categories reviews by DPreview in their "Best camera for under S dollars" series. So maybe you don't need a whole bunch of new bodies to be a really good camera maker.

I am in no way saying Sony does not make good digital cameras. I have owned more digital cameras of that brand than any other. But I do say that too many new bodies may not always be a good thing and actually a disadvantage.

It isnt fake news. Look at their earlier apsc sized sensors with SLT. Secondly, it took the latest gen full frame sensor with the newest tech to negate most of the effects. By then the market moved on with mirrorless and the benefits offered by SLT is inconsequential and still irrelevant as the pros didnt flock to it just like how they didnt when the tech first came out. True innovation proliferates throughout the industry.

Obviously you have never shot a Sony camera in your life...what a load of BS...The Sony A77ii SLT APSC rivals the earlier tech of the Sony A99 in terms of low light, High ISO performance...and beats it handily in regions such as AF... As it should being 2 years newer...Don't comment on things you know nothing about...just a troll people nothing to see here...

@Fivepin. Exactly my point. The latest tech negates the drawbacks of the SLT tech. I don't need to shoot the camera to know how it is. There is the internet and there are reviews out there. Perhaps you may have heard about the internet while living underneath that rock?

Other companies have created very interesting or innovative products and get almost no press about it. Foveon sensors, Live Bulb on Olympus cameras, etc.

When Sony includes IBIS on a camera we get an article "Sony first to add sensor-based stabilization to a Full Frame". It doesn't matter if 100 cameras did it before on smaller formats, or did it better - once Sony does it, a way to make it news is found.

Eye-Fi AF or whatever it's called? Innovative... only, y'know, in the 90s, and by Canon, on film cameras.

I have nothing against Sony. They're fine cameras, and the only mirrorless FF at the moment which can't really be overstated. But I don't get why a huge deal is made of their 'innovation', rather than focusing on what is actually alluring about them, or on the advances of other brands.

FWIW, I always saw Olympus as far and away the most innovative. If I didn't mind the small sensor I'd be all over Oly!

I can't find the "Sony first to add..." story you're talking about (though that could be our search function's fault). However, given that stabilization is more difficult with greater mass, I'd argue that bringing an existing tech to a different scale is interesting, even if it's not hugely innovative.

Also, no, Canon did not do in the 1990s what Sony is doing now. Canon made a system that tried to use the AF point the photographer was looking at, Sony has made a mode that automatically finds and focuses on the eye of the subject. Olympus actually beat them to it but it wasn't as effective as Sony's version.

I was pretty surprised, when writing this article, how few innovations I could attribute to Olympus (they were beaten to live view, in-body stabilisation and pixel shift high res modes, for instance).

Hum, you seem to be confusing Sony's "focus on the eye" technology with Canon's "use the focus point that the photographer seems to be looking at", Canon got plenty of press coverage in the magazines back then (early 90's), but Dpreview didn't have a lot of readers at that point in time...

Minolta was the first to offer stabilized sensors in the A-series digicams. Minolta continued it on APS-C DSLRs, and Sony inherited that and continued the development. Pentax and Olympus' systems came out years after Minolta's.

Sony also did full-frame IBIS when everyone was saying it couldn't be done in the a900 a decade ago.

Professionals who take care of their lenses usually get 15 to 20 years out of a lens before replacement. So in order to earn their business, a camera company has to be competitive for 15 to 20 years.

In 2015, Sony's top camera was the A7RII. It is a great camera, but not fast enough to use for sports photography. No one is going to sell off their lens investments for a camera that just caught up to their competitors a few months ago.

Yes, that's true, the only reason that people buy cameras is to take pictures at the Olympics ;-)

"I just completed a series of shots with the a9 over 3 days:...I made about 7500 exposures. The battery was fully charged at the beginning. At the end, it was down to 42%. I did not chimp.Pretty impressive."https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4283161

Olympics? Phase 1: zero. Hasselblad: zero. Leica: zero. If I don't see it in use at the Olympics, it is not gear worth owning. For the same reason, I will never buy a fisheye lens, softbox, wide aperture prime, ND filter, extension tube set, or lots of other stuff I know might be useful for photography other than sports. "Hey, look at all these photographers crammed into the end zone! A few of them are using the same camera I have!"

IMO, this explanation is not the answer and will not stop the complaints. As long as there are still so many Canikon owners with all their lenses, there will be a denial of the achievements of other brands. Just human nature. 😉

A worthy acknowledgement that there is a lot of Sony content on DPR. The rationale for why seems very well reasoned. I look forward ( as and when ) to more content about NIkon, Pentax and Canon. It will be a pleasant change when it happens.

Sony needs to drop its APS-C line of cameras. They throw out an occasional lens for that system every now and then but it seems stagnant.

They should concentrate on Full Frame and the 1 inch sensor. Replace their APS-C line with some higher quality bodies (larger than the RX100 line), and add some truly compact, fast lenses....or a body/lens package like the Panasonic LX100. The 1-inch sensor format has so much potential.

That's why the A6000, A6300, and A6700 have all recently gotten price reductions-- in preparation for the upcoming A6700.

1-inch sensor ILC doesn't sell. Look at the Nikon 1 system!

The reality is that a few years from now, mirrorless will mirror the DSLR market (no pun intended), and ultimately replace it. And as we know, the DSLR market is a dual-format market consisting of APS-C and FF. (See Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony). The mirrorless market will be the same.

The 1-inch ILC experiment basically began and died with Nikon 1. I don't think many companies are eager to repeat Nikon 1's success (or lack thereof).

You're probably right, but I just don't see the point of the APS-C line for Sony anymore...other than to compete with other manufacturers' APS-C lines. And everybody else does it better than Sony. So, Sony introduces a new A6700 that's a few hundred dollars less than the A7lll. You're better off going full-frame if you're going to go Sony because of the lens offerings.

@jvt - I know plenty of people who absolutely have no desire to go FF. And for them, "a few hundred dollars" does matter. Just because it doesn't make sense for you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense for a lot of other people. Besides, the same reasons you are using to argue against APS-C vs FF can also be used to argue against 1-inch vs APS-C! The Nikon V3 kit (with its slow 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 kit zoom) was $1200!

@jvt I'm not mad at that idea. Fuji has such a solid foothold in the aps-c market(especially regarding lenses), if they started putting out non x-trans options(one of the biggest complaints about Fuji), I think they could pretty much lock down the mirrorless aps-c market.

Sony bodies can compete, but unless they really ramp up the aps-c lenses, It would be a lost cause, long term. Would be wise to focus on FF and 1". (And maybe fit a 4/3 into rx100 size cam ;) )

Except that you don't need ASP-C lenses to use an ASP-C camera. I use full frame lenses with the Sony A6000; this includes the full frame version of Sony's Nifty Fifty and several Sigma lenses built for full frame. If anything, by buying full frame lenses for the ASP-C camera, you prepare for the day you jump to full frame by buying any one of the A7 or A9 cameras.

You are assuming a thing that most photographers I know don't do: Buy ASP-C lenses just for their ASP-C cameras. Especially since those I know own both full frame and ASP-C Sony cameras, they merely use full frame lenses for both. Which is happening in most cases.

@ jvt I doubt if Sony will listen to you and I'm thankful for that. The a6x00 series renewed my interest in photography. The a6000 with the kit lens is my jacket pocket kit and the a6500 is just an awesome camera that plays so well with my adapted lenses. I am looking forward to how they develop this line of cameras. (+ what RB37 said)

Sure, buy a camera that the manufacturer sees as an means of selling you a more expensive camera. Make do with lenses that either aren't ideal now, or won't fulfil the same role in the future (if you like the 75mm equiv of a 50 on APS-C, you're going to struggle to recreate it when you change to an a7).

Buying today for a format you didn't originally choose is great for manufacturers, but not necessarily ideal for you.

Except, Richard, that you assume that a FF lens on an APS-C camera is a bad thing. That is a subjective question.

For those of us who may like the greater reach of a FF lens on the crop sensor, this is a good thing because it does what they want it to do. Those folks have no illusions about the differences of a FF on APS-C and on a FF sensor. If it works for them, then great.

For others who are looking at the cost of upgrading to full frame, buying the full frame lens helps reduce the cost that comes from making that move. Those folks also understand the differences and, again, if it works for them, then great.

Ultimately, as with all things photography, once you get past the technical aspects, it is all about what you prefer.

I'm not against buying full frame lenses for APS-C at all. I'm just not a fan of people limiting themselves to doing so, and trying to pitch the paucity of choice as a benefit, buying into the idea that they're now on a path to something they didn't necessarily originally want (especially since they're going to lose that 'reach' they apparently wanted, when they get there).

Poorly supported APS-C pushes people to buy full frame. Which is fine. That's marketing. But it's hard to advocate for it as being a customer benefit.

Except, Richard, that you are assuming that people are thinking that hard about their initial ILC purchase in the first place. I have spent time working with photographers at newspapers and even taking some photos that have run in major newspapers. Even with slightly more experience than the average hobbyist, I still bought my A6000 not because I wanted APS-C, but because I was ready to move up from point-and-shoots in my hobby activities. This is probably true of most hobbyists moving from smartphones and point-and-shoots to ILC; they learn about crop versus full frame sensors after they made the initial purchase. Once they learn about full frame versus APS-C, they may end up going after full frame simply because it is considered a higher level (even though it is merely different).

Now, as far as professionals may be concerned: Those folks who know more about cameras may have been willing to go with APS-C even with the limitations for various reasons only known to them.

@Richard Butler: I'm not sure where the idea that there is a paucity of lenses for the a6x00 series comes from. There are more than for a lot of brands—Canon M for one (cf. http://briansmith.com/aps-e-mount-lenses-for-sony-mirrorless-cameras/) and once you get beyond a certain focal length FF lenses are fine, i.e. there is no or little size/weight penalty.

Looking at Brian's list, once you rule out the lenses that aren't very good and the ones that are formidably expensive, then it looks a lot less impressive. There are clearer signs of Sony being dedicated to FF (a trend we've seen before in other makers).

I take your point about tele lenses, but although 300mm equiv is handy, I find a 105-300mm equiv less useful than a 70-200, personally. At least there's an F4 version.

@Richard Butler: Sure I agree that Sony has put a lot more effort into FF lenses but, given that the attachment rate for APS is lower, that makes commercial sense. If I am to believe the forums (and Thom H) neither Canon or Nikon has exactly a wondrous line of APS lenses either because that's not where the money is. But, although Sony is mainly focused on FF, the a6500 and the 18-135mm show that they have not forgotten APS. Of course personal needs might not be fulfilled—I would like a faster 16-50mm :-)

To be fair – most camera manufacturers don’t do give 2 day press junkets for every camera they launch anymore. Who else flies the youtubers and big website people across the continent for a 2 day all expense trip for the announcement for almost all of their A7 launches. I mean just look at the latest Sony Kando Trip 2.0 – free trip with set-up photo ops all around for all the big social media players and this wasn’t even a product launch!

I am seeing other manufacturers starting to follow Sony but not to the level that Sony marketing is pumping money into these press events. They are basically buying coverage by doing these free events with models, balloon / helicopter rides / exotic locations, plus all the toys one could ever want to try out etc. Of course, they are going to write about Sony when they get home.

Sony is, and always was, the underdog in the camera world behind the big 2 players. They need some aggressive marketing strategies to push their products in the mainstream consciousness, aka people who believe that the universe only revolves around the Canikon tandem. Whatever it is worth, Sony's products offer some pretty compelling alternatives.

Sony isn't just buying coverage. The reality is that it is also launching cameras, lots of cameras, and third-party lens makers such as Sigma and Tamron are also offering new lenses for them. When a firm offers up new cameras and lenses while others are quiet or merely refreshing what they already offer, that firm will gain news coverage. Because news is about what is new.

Methinks a lot of folks are just getting too loyal to one particular brand. I like Sony cameras and have bought a couple. But I have also owned Nikon and Canon, and still own lenses that I use on the Sony cameras. If Nikon offers a compelling product, then I will look at it and consider buying it. I am only loyal to my pocket and my efforts.

I think this is what a company does when they are really serious about becoming #1. They make the investment, not only in the product but also the marketing. You need both. Look at Apple and their keynotes. Would they have been as successful if it hadn't been for Steve Job's keynotes that launched his iconic products?

I've read many of the comments. Folks, think of the choices you have today vs. 5-10 years ago. DSLR and lenses or Compact camera. Now there is a huge middle ground of good to great cameras in between a full DSLR rig or a compact with a tiny sensor.

Canon and Nikon should not get too cocky. Remember when people thought their Blackberry would always be around? Let them all compete... it's better for all of us.

Fujifilm is at least as innovative as Sony. For instance, the X-H1 sample gallery contains 97 photos, all straight-out-of-camera and many applying different film simulation modes. That's an achievement, compared to most other sample galleries, being flooded with "Image processed from Raw using Adobe Camera Raw", including also A7 III.

So many things could be discussed around Fujifilm, including also new firmware features and lens offerings, besides better OOC results. But for some reason all love goes to Sony nowadays, no matter how many child deceases their cameras exhibit.

I really like what Fuji is doing. I would have switched from Nikon to Fuji a few years ago except for one thing...the AF tracking is not close to a DSLR for sports. If Fuji's XT-2 could focus track like a D500, I'd switch soon. Sony has shown a mirrorless that can track as well or close enough to a D500. That's huge and why they're getting so much love.

No, Fuji is not as innovative as Sony. While all the film simulations sure look beautiful, I wouldn't call them "innovations", just very well processed in camera JPEGS. Neither are their firmware updates or lenses (despite how good they are).

There are many that consider that their gear is about just about right but maybe could be better in some areas. Often that is not enough of a good reason for people to change their system. I often read why not jump ship to this that or the other system. Not only is that expensive, considering the depreciation on your gear and the cost of the new or second hand gear, when you look at the imagines taken with your new camera it will be hard to see a difference that justify all the effort and cost. I tried Sony APSC after reading excellent reviews and parted with my Xpro 1. The Sony A6000 was better in AF, FPS etc, but, got hot, lousy handling , poor kit lens, strange menu system (to me), and in the end no better image quality. Now I shoot DSLR and mirrorless from three different brands but Sony is not one of them, lesson learned for me was to stop chasing mirages and grow with my systems.

@User9362470513 I don't shoot FF, which is why I don't move to Sony. The A6500 is not as good as my D7200, let alone a D500, at AF tracking. You have to step up to the A7III for that. Sony is also pricey on their lens and third party lens are there yet(maybe in another year they will be). Finally, I don't like Sony ergonomics and I hated the A6500 in my hand.

Except that there's been a lot of reporting on Fujifilm everywhere I read, including fstoppers and Petapixel. Fujifilm has been as aggressive as Sony in launching new products, and has garnered a lot of press as a result.

Sony has definitely been very impressive over the last few years but if anybody at DPR would like to write about other brands, I’ll read eagerly (I’m looking at you Panasonic GX9: first impressions in Feb., sample gallery updated in Mar.).

For all their "innovation" Sony has not yet built their own service/repair facilities in America as far as I know. Until they are on a par with Canon and Nikon in terms of support and repair I will not even consider purchasing one of their products.

Fair point! In my country as well their service is way below the standards of Nikon or canon. But I love their products. Eye AF is revolutionary and I don't want to use cameras that lack such a feature.

People also forget that Sony already has pretty significant pro services support for their video business. They support lots of broadcast videography gear, cinema cameras, etc. That's actually a bigger business than stills photography.

Fact always hard to sallow. I feel the same thing. They do not have a good service in my country "Saudi Arabia" yet. I need to send any cameras to another country "UAE" to be fixed. This is a big shame with Sony strategy. Many people are holding back because of its poor service. The worse is when the warranty is expire I will need to pay for the shipping cost. Then the question is why do you have many showroom to sell your product in the first place.hopefully this might change in the coming months or 1-2 yrs.

@T3.. their "Pro Service Support Center" in NY city is a "Photo Tech" store.. that repairs several brands of cameras. The Sony Repair Center in Los Angeles is just across from Frogtown and has a rating of 1.8 stars.They seem to have "... launched a full in-the-field technical team to support professionals across all of North America.".. not sure how many people in that "team".. but does not sound very promising, to be "launching a team" ... does that team have around 500 members to cover all the major sporting events...or is it one "team" of let's say 15 people?

@cbphoto123 - Here's the deal: with every criticism that is leveled at Sony, they steadily address that issue or challenge. That's what good companies do. It's a process of iteration, evolution, maturation. We are certainly seeing this with Sony. People forget that Canon and Nikon took years to build up their pro services. But as for Sony, people forget that Sony already has considerable experience supporting the pro video and broadcast industry. The difference is that Sony is MASSIVE in pro video and broadcasting, so they have the massive network to support it. The reality is that there just aren't a lot of pro Sony photography shooters yet. So their pro camera support system is proportional to their current pool of pro photographers: small. Have people forgotten that Sony just released their first pro flagship body last year? Have people forgotten that Sony's pool of pro photographers is still in its infancy? But as I said, Sony is rapidly maturing and evolving in this realm.

@cbphoto123 - My point is that Sony is just getting started. They are literally *just* stepping their toes into the pro market. And with that will come pro support. Sony did that in the pro video industry, and they'll do that in the pro photo industry. But nothing happens instantaneously. Things happen in stages. But you can bet that Sony will certainly have pro support for the 2020 Olympics. I think a lot of what Sony has been doing has been in preparation for the 2020 Olympics, from introducing the A9 last year, to the eventual launch of telephotos, and even to the launch of the A7 III this year. We can see that Sony has definitely been playing the long game.

I can agree Sony is doing amazing things for the industry, especially when it comes to sensor technology, But I still don’t believe they are a solid choice compared to Canon, Nikon, and Fuji for example. Sony has a long history of abandoning projects and it seems like every iteration of the A series has been a *Bug* fix for the previous generation. And let’s face it, they have already abandoned their crop series. I also believe Sony lenses are way overpriced and tend to underperform compared to other brands with the exception of a few prime gems. Subjectively speaking I still can’t for the life of me get with Sony’s output. There is something about Sony colors, wb, and tones that really turn me off, it looks like mobile phone output, albeit with obviously much better detail. I am still rooting for Sony because it will drive other manufacturers to step up their games, but I don’t see a big future for them once other companies bring their systems up to par.

You make some fair points but I heavily invested in their system as I felt they were one of the few really innovative camera companies around. And to date I really like their products so far. Sure their earlier bodies had a few niggles but they had some really great features at the time.

The current A7 III is just the icing on the cake. It's so superior to anything I have used before and that includes Nikon and canon bodies. I feel Sony is strongly concentrating on their FF mirrorless bodies cause they know the future lies here. Canon and Nikon are way behind them now.

@ Retro1976: Sony is also heavy into professional video with the E mount, which strengthens the platform a lot. The A mount is still selling, and it remains to see if other DSLR makers will support two mounts in the long run.

They have no serious crop sensor lenses, just consumer grade crap and the "option" to buy absurdly expensive full frame Zeiss lenses or full frame GM zooms which negate the point of having a small sized body with an APS-C sensor.They HAVE abandoned the APS-C market. If you want a serious APS-C system you go Fuji or even Pentax if you don't need the AF or care about video.

@yiangelo - Most "serious" glass for DSLRs is also FF. Plus, remember that it took a while for Canon and Nikon to introduce "serious" APS-C glass for their DSLRs. And they had a bigger pool to sell to! Eventually, "serious" APS-C glass will be introduced for APS-C. As for Fuji X, that system is *exclusively* APS-C! So obviously, they are going to have "serious" APS-C glass, because the Fuji X system is *only* APS-C! LOL.

Sony introduced the E-Mount cameras in 2010. That was 8 years ago. They just released a new APS-C lens 2 months ago after nearly 5 years without releasing an APS-C lens for their system. And guess what? It's another plastic junk consumer kit lens (18-135).Keep waiting for those 2.8 zooms in APS-C format...but don't hold your breath!

What high-end APS-C lenses are you expecting or you think are missing? If the FF lens is just a bit larger and heavier I would buy the FF since I can use it on either FF or APS-C (not considering crop-mode with APS-C lenses on a FF). I don't think it's a fair comparison with a system that is only 4/3s or APS-C because they have to target APS-C. If you have limited resources I think it's better to produce lenses that can be used on all sensor formats - at least to start.

I used the Batis 85/1.8 on my A6000 and it worked great. Handling was fine. It works great on my A7iii too.

Would I like to see Sony come out with more high-end APS-C lenses? Only if they are significantly smaller and/or lighter than the FF version and only if it doesn't take away from the more flexible FF lens development.

I want to buy a new advanced compact camera, but many of the sample images from Sony, Panasonic, Nikon, Canon pretty much suck. They do funny things to do colour, as if looking through sun glasses.

Many of the photos have to be adjusted in Adobe Camera.

Olympus was great when it came to colour, but they have not produced an advanced compact for some years. I currently have an Olympus XZ-2, but they is nothing which is up-to-date.

I love the new Fuji AX-5, the photos screen sharp and colours outstanding, whilst I love the sample photos. The reviews seem luke warm on other web sites. It also seems to be doing funny things with auto-focus.

@ttran88 This is a good place to play spot the troll. I have to think DPR knew they were pouring gas on the fire even if their reasons are completely logical and obvious for why Sony has been getting a lot of press. Well done I say.

@ttran88, whether or not you're right... I kinda feel like it's a good thing if they are trolling Canikon. They've dragging ass and resting on their names for some time. They deserve the trolling/prodding, and I think most Canikon uses would agree.

The Fuji S3 was transformative, in its design (co-created by Nikon) and technical innovation. I did not buy one at the time, but it was a beautiful piece of gear that helped convince me that 'the future is almost here' (after shooting advertising with Nikon, Hassy and Sinar gear for 20 years at that point). And it soon was, when I ditched Nikon and bought the FF Canon 1Ds Mk II DSLR. However the Fuji S3 still holds up today as one sexy-looking harbinger of all that has followed.

You might want to keep all three. If you can deal with the lower resolution, no current camera (even Fuji's own X series) produces better color rendition out the box. And the film-like sensors (literally designed to duplicate the light capturing characteristics of film) can keep up with anything out there today.

In Sony's earlier days, they stated in a brochure that their goal was to take photography to places it had never been.

I believe in many ways they've succeeded. Forget about the A7 line for a moment -- right now in 2018, younger photographers who've never seen the Sony R1 (pictured in the article) or even the Sony F717 are stunned when I tell them that these cameras were made well over a decade ago. And when I show them the laser matrix focusing and the built in night vision on the F717 -- well, you get the idea....

The ENTIRE camera industry (including Canon, Nikon and DPR) wants you (us) to buy into 'mirrorless is the next big thing'...The problem is that many are not sold on the idea - same lens, same sensor, small tv to look at rather than the real world......

Why'd they want us to buy in? Lots of sales for everybody (look at the history of step change ie auto focus and digital - and lots of clicks for DPR). Problem is 'the dog don't really like the bone' so the market leaders are cautious and the aspirants (Sony) have no choice..

None of the manufacturers are stupid - they are just starting from a different place.....

Alternatively, we don't have a position on which you should buy. However, we are quite excited about there now being a choice.

And, as the article says, there's more to write about as technologies develop. "Canon builds entirely competent entry-level DSLR, but with more pixels" isn't much of a headline, even if it results in a very good camera.

Actually, Nikon and Canon wish mirrorless had never been the disruptive force it has become, just like Kodak wished the digital sensor had never been created by it own R&D engineers. If you've not yet used a really good mirrorless camera in truly difficult shooting conditions so that you understand why they are steamrolling DSLRs in popularity, then you're probably going to wind up like the 'Great Yellow Father.'

Alternatively, just imagine if mirrorless was the norm today, and DSLRs were the new product. You'd be saying, "same lens, same sensor, small etched piece of frosted plastic called a 'focusing screen' to look at...no real-time exposure preview, no histogram in the VF, no focus peaking/magnification, no face/eye AF, no focus boxes around faces/eyes, focus points clustered only in the center of the VF, no silent electronic shutter, big moving mirror, noisy mirror slap, chunky thick bodies required to house the big moving mirror, slower frame rates due to limitations of moving mirror, possible focus calibration issues because focus sensors are located in a different place from the image sensor, VF brightness entirely dependent on ambient light entering the lens and bouncing across several reflective surfaces before entering your eye, less lens adaptability due to much larger lens register distance, etc, etc, etc."

@T3. Er - I think you are missing the point I was trying to make. I am delighted your photos have improved because of the things you mention - mine might as well? I’m just not convinced however as I like the feeling of immediacy and involvement I get by actually looking at what I am shooting. Also as it IS the same lens a and senor I can only really improve focus (pluses and minuses here I would say) or exposure - raw takes care of that...so the real benefit is info in the viewfinder - I can buy that - but it won’t make me Ansel Adams...

I’m not trying to be difficult here - I think that mirrorless is a decent evolution rather than a revolution - the industry would prefer it were more than that....

I was using an advanced compact. Bought my first mirrorless, only to be frustrated. I don't want to carry around a collection of lenses, to get the same range my advanced compact.

They should focus on making compact's better. Some of us still want to use a very high quality compact. Many manufactures are charging silly prices for their compacts. It is forcing me to use smartphones, even though I don't want to.

@Kandid - "I’m just not convinced however as I like the feeling of immediacy and involvement I get by actually looking at what I am shooting."

That's just your own bias talking. I shoot both DSLR and mirrorless, but mostly mirrorless now. I don't find any difference in "immediacy and involvement" between the two. If anything, I find more immediacy and involvement (especially when shooting people) when using mirrorless because I don't have my shooting flow being interrupted by constantly doing focus/lock/recompose like I did when shooting DSLRs. The camera just locks onto the face and holds focus on the face no matter where the face moves in a scene, across the entire image frame. Therefore, I can shoot with more immediacy and less interruption to the composition. I will never buy another camera that doesn't have face AF and (nearly) full-viewfinder AF coverage. Lack of full-viewfinder AF coverage and lack of face/eye AF tracking is too annoying and limiting to me now.

Kandid to your point about 'actually looking at what I am shooting', you're actually looking at a reflection of it, bounced off the DSLR mirror (as you know). Therefore the alignment of that mirror with your sensor can create focusing issues, whereas with mirrorless you are seeing the actual light rays striking the sensor where focus is being physically achieved (or not). I won't even get into the limitations of trying to see through a DSLR's viewfinder in ultra-dark conditions and having to resort to clunky 'Live View' on the LCD, instead of simply seeing a bright, HiRes digital image in your EVF, showing whatever adjustments and 'film looks' you've applied so that you're already judging the look of your final image. And yes, yours and all of our photos are getting better because of better technology. After shooting for nearly 40 years, I can definitely affirm that.

Username and T3. Relax guys - I am not saying the EVF does not work or is horrible - I have a couple of Sony mirrorless cams and an just about to buy an Alpha 6000 for walk around use. However for the stuff I really like doing (wildlife and secondarily landscape) the combo of Canon stuff was the best available when I bought it 2.5 years ago - and an EVF isn’t a big enough deal to make me burn a £10k system that really delivers....for me...

I'm pretty sure the Pellix had a reflex mirror. Not a moving one, but nothing in the term DSLR says it needs one.

I'm also not entertaining the idea that rangefinders are mirrorless (since you usually need a mirror to get the viewfinder to work). Regardless, though, Mirrorless (as a contraction of Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera) wasn't really used prior to Panasonic's G1. Shout-out to Pentax for showing the concept, some years earlier, of course.

...although Canon and Nikon probably see them as EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens).

Reg. Pentax, I think they had an interesting concept with their K-01. With a full depth K-mount, they had full lens compatibility, and they could have designed new lenses collapsed in the body to take advantage of the mirrorless reduced flange (not ‘collapsible’ but ‘collapsed’ at all time, i.e. with the rear elements protuding into the body even during use).

We all know what a D/SLR is—a camera with a pentaprism that directs light to the eyepiece and a mirror that lifts out of the way when the shutter is released.In contrast to the swinging SLR mirror, a pellicle mirror does not ruin every picture by thrashing around in the shutter box like a dying hake, so the Pellix is philosophically more like mirrorless. Though rangefinders do have tiny mirrors, they are eschewed by those aspiring to rise above the mediocrity of the herd. Instead, a scene is selected based on its compositional promise and the likelihood of encountering suitable subjects. Next a meter reading is taken to determine the f/stop and shutter speed. Then, based on the f/stop, the depth of field scale on the lens barrel is used to set a focus zone. When a subject enters the pre-set distance, a composition is framed that gives order and meaning to the photograph and places the subject within a specific context; then and only then is the shutter is actuated.

@Richard Butler "I'm also not entertaining the idea that rangefinders are mirrorless (since you usually need a mirror to get the viewfinder to work)."

That statement is not quite true. The "rangefinder" part of the camera has a mirror as part of the parallax focusing mechanism. Where Mirrorless in the current discussion means having a mirror in the lens/sensor optical path. Piddly point, but context is everything these days.

In some ways this must innovate fever is feeding on past times when technological innovation was offset by cost decreases in technology. Now it is just making the whole business more expensive by the minute at what was the entry level and probably helping the exodus to smartphones.

@KeepCalm: If you're upgrading to the newest that's true, but camera's of 3 years ago are great, and you can buy them at a fair price. In that sense the fast innovations make what's already out there cheaper at a faster rate, so I'm definitely not complaining. To me it's more about the perspective you're looking at it.

Sony may be making a plethora of new toys, but until Sony can match/beat the ruggedness and feature sets of offerings from Panasonic, Canon, and (I hope once again) Nikon, and until Sony's US service organization gets their ducks in a row, I'll spend my money with the others.

Here's what's most interesting about this piece..."...may feel the need to be more innovative than we've seen in a while."Should C/N follow this path (be aggressively innovative), then they will necessarily need to be equally, if not more innovative with their DSLR to keep pace. UNLESS they plan to have mirrorless make up the majority of their lineup (eventually).I recently switched to Sony and I'd happily switch back to Canon or to Nikon if either of those companies leaves Sony in the dust. So, I'm excited about what is rumored. But, what initially had me grow disenfranchised with Canon was the consistent lack of innovation in favor of milking profits. I'm not sure they, as a company, are going to be so willing to do the opposite in FF mirrorless. After all, they had the chance with APSC mirrorless and didn't do it. More likely, I believe, is that the C/N first gen mirrorless is roughly equal to Sony's second gen and before C/N get to their second gen, Sony will be on gen 4/5.

Exactly what Magnar said - but also, for a LOT of people, Sony cameras weren't an option before generation #3. Additionally, it's taken 5 years to flesh out the lens ecosystem with native mount lenses. Now that the cameras are more or less on par with Canon and Nikon's DSLR offerings (ahead in some areas, behind in others, on par in others) and all of the common lenses are available, many people are now adding Sony to their Canon kit or switching. Should Canon and Nikon NOT bring a competitive FF mirrorless to market, I think many, many more will switch to Sony.Finally, it can be expensive to switch to Sony if you have older lenses with a low resale value and a couple of depreciated bodies, a couple of flashes, etc. So, that certainly keeps people where they are. Some look longingly over the fence while others invent reasons that they'd never switch (despite secretly wanting to) & shout those reasons, angrily, from every rooftop they can find. Those folks are quite bitter!

And, of course, there are more reasons, as well. IMO, the only one which holds any weight is the lack of lenses longer than 400mm. The rest are preferences which are sometimes simply learned habits but always related only to the individual and not applicable to everyone.

Not really answers I'm afraid - wishful thinking does not obscure the fact that Canon and Nikon sell lots more cameras than Sony. I've got a couple of very decent Canon cameras and some excellent lenses; the thought of ditching all that (for what exactly - looking at a tv rather than reality..?) at great expense seems laughable......

@ Kandid: Sure, another Canon user who decides to stay with his brand. How could you then come to a different conclusion than what you wrote here?

When using an EVF you refer to the end result, the pictures. With an OVF there is much more guesswork, for exposure, sharpness, epth of focus, due to the nature of a groundglass based viewfinder, and the fact that you need to calibrate all lenses to ensure maximum sharpness. I much prefer the TV and on-sensor phase detection! ;-)

If you don't see what was provided as answers (or reasons) why Canon has the dominant market share, then I'm not sure you actually understand what answers/reasons are. Or, you're trolling. Or, you're being obtuse.Regardless, further replies from me, or anyone, will do you no good.

I am sure that Canon will bring out a perfectly competent full frame mirrorless camera soonish - and its unlikely I will buy that either - unless it is in some way significantly better than the successors of the cameras I have....or as good and cheaper :-)

@Wagnar, I had a Sony A7RII, when I opened the RAW files in Lightroom I quite never get the same exposure that I saw in the EVF, in the EFV I always tried to expose to the right but when I opened the raws they were too much underexposed, maybe this could be because the histogram in the EVF is jpeg related and not raw related? Just asking. Thank you.

They got to that position by being very innovative and moving fast. EOS went from having zero market share in 1987 to overtaking Nikon because they were more innovative, fast-moving, and leaders in camera technology. But now it's Sony who is in that position, doing what Canon used to do.

@T3. I was not asking why Canon WAS market leader I’m asking why ARE they market leader now in the face of all these Sony innovations - many predicted the end of this dominance after both gen 1 and certainly gen 2 of the 7 series.....waiting.......

No one with an ounce of common sense would predict a change in even the first decade. There are way too many people using the Canon system for Sony to take first place overnight. It's a simple matter of volume.. If you saw predictions and there was any rational thought behind them they were referring to many years in the future. I'm not saying you didn't see predictions like that I'm just simply saying that if you did then these people don't understand what they're talking about.

Sony has always had better tech than Canon and Nikon. Look at the Sony DSLRs and DSLTs and compare them to the equivalent Canon and Nikon that it competes with. Sony either has better features at the same price point or much cheaper for a similiar specification.

Imagine a scenario where you hold a Canon in one of your hands and a Sony in the other and imagine which one is more likely to be working in 5 years time if this is important to you. I wonder how many people will say the Sony irrespective of what the true situation is.

You have to really win that battle regardless of the endless stream of high tech that rolls out. Plus the constant marketing that improvements are absolutely necessary does rather invalidate your previous purchase. It does not promote the idea that the equipment is designed for longevity and even could be taken as an admission that nothing sold by the innovators is ever really fit for purpose at the time of sale.

I wonder if people stepping off this technology escalator growing weary and ever poorer and realising there will never will be a final destination in sight could be a real threat.

@T3We are talking about people so how delicate they think they are and how many think this way is the question I am asking.From my point of view holding any 2 compact or mirrorless cameras I would think myself lucky if they lasted 4 years nowadays.

@KeepCalm - That's total non-sense. Total ignorant bias. But that's what desperate people do-- make up all kinds of silly FUD to make themselves feel better, lol. I have a Fuji X-E1 that is over 5 years old and a Sony A6000 which is coming up on 4 years. Both are still going strong. They'll probably last as long as I have batteries for them.

The reality is that mirrorless cameras are basically just DSLRs with a ton of extraneous components taken out of them. I bought a Canon EOS M a while back. When I got it, I was surprised at how simple it was. It was as if Canon took a Rebel DSLR and stripped it bare of EVERYTHING except the image sensor, the processor board, and the rear LCD, then installed it into a magnesium alloy shell. I felt like I could throw it off a two-story building, and it would still work fine. Mirrorless cameras have a lot fewer components than DSLRs. Less to go wrong, less to get knocked out of whack. Utter simplicity. They are practically solid-state devices.

@T3A bit hyperbolic on the insults bringing in desperate and describing other people's views as total nonsense, ignorant bias and silly FUD. Just a discussion about how cameras will be affected in durability given that most time and effort is going in to technology upgrades. Not that excited about it myself as we are just talking about cameras and I respect other people's opinions. My EM5 needed a shutter replacement at 1 year old so not so good but your cameras work so they all do and will forever.

It's a fair analysis of the current state of technology and technical iteration within the industry. Sony is iterating a lot faster than most and bringing some realy cool technologies to play e.g. continuous eye af etc....Sony are also investing very heavily in courting the reviewing media and blogging press with some incredible trips:- Kando conference (flights, accomodation).- A7riii (hot air balloon rides, flights, meals, accomodation)- A7iii (dune buggies, helicopter rides over the grand canyon) etc...- Sailing trips etc....

These are quite costly when you consider that they are doing this for 200 people. Gone are the days where media are flown out to a cheap hotel, a camera company ceo puts up a few powerpoint slides, review cameras are handed out and that is that! On the flip side, Sony's new style of launch does foster a sense of (what I feel is understandable) skepticism among the buying public. The products are good enough on their own - why the need for helicopters

Marketing is so important. It's not good enough just to have a good product, especially when going up against established systems. I remember when Canon EOS was relatively new, going up against Nikon. Canon marketed the heck out of EOS. That's how EOS rose in popularity. I remember when Canon hired popular celebrities such as tennis star Andre Agassi:

They out-marketed Nikon with every new launch. I suppose someone like yourself would have said, "Canon's new style of launch does foster a sense of (what I feel is understandable) skepticism among the buying public." But in reality, it didn't create skepticism among the buying public. The public didn't say, "If the products are good enough on their own, why do they need to hire Agassi to promote it?" On the contrary, it created tremendous awareness and helped bolster adoption of the new upstart EOS system.

I agree with you, marketing is important. This isn't new. However the level and reach of marketing is at another level today on targetted youtube channels VS the global generic tv marketing approach of yesteryear! Having well known youtube celebrities such as Northrups, Chris and Jordan, etc.... attend an event and then (pre)review the product on day of launch ensures that Sony's products get more visibility, no doubt. The canon approach of the past is clearly marketing. Conversely most youtube reviewers present as unbiased reviewers from a Sony marketing event.... there is a difference IMHO.My point is that the level of freebies is also a double edged sword for the reviewer. Say something bad, then don't get invited back; adios to the Sony helicopter rides and source content.Say something good - and get accused of favoritism. I think the Sony freebies could be toned down a level such that they don't stoke the fires of skepticism in the following public for said youtube channels.

Please cite examples where Sony has done that kind of retribution. Sounds like it is you who is trying to sow skepticism. Frankly, I find Youtube reviewers to be very candid and straight-forward with their assessments. And they have to be, because they don't want to "stoke the fires of skepticism" amongst their subscribers if their reviews are no longer considered honest, practical, and useful. It's very easy for viewers to hit that "Unsubscribe" button! So the reality is that there are organic checks and balances in place. Sony gets critical assessments from Youtube reviewers, and Youtube reviewers get critical assessment from their viewers.

Besides, I would MUCH rather have these reviewers be taken to interesting places and given interesting scenarios in which to try these cameras, rather than some conference room in some hotel where they barely get to use the gear.

Canikon does not seem to find "real" value in paying for expensive trips for the people reviewing their equipment... or they would.

Sony in hopes of getting more "positive" publicity does. If they thought that marketing their products this way would not benefit them.. they would cease immediately. To assume that these trips will not skew the revues favorably, at all... is naive at best.

The skepticism created by these all expenses paid trips is real and warranted.

@cbphoto123 - Canon and Nikon are far more established, so they feel that they can coast. They have a lot of captive loyalists who will buy their stuff no matter what. As for Sony, they are the upstart system, so they have to work harder to get their deserved attention. Canon used to be the upstart system, and they garnered their attention by hiring people like Andre Agassi and Steffi Graf, then plastering it across television and magazines.

But those aren't critical reviews. They are more like one-sided propaganda. But it worked for Canon, getting them a lot of "positive" publicity. Hiring Andre Agassi is definitely a lot safer than putting gear into the hands of Youtube reviewers at launch events so they can critique the gear and report it back to their massive pool of subscribers! And it's those subscribers who keep these reviewers honest. Just read the comments section of these video reviews!

@cbphoto123 - At the end of the day, the wrath of subscriber feedback has more influence on reviewers than Sony does. After all, it's their subscribers that give these Youtubers the clout to be invited by Sony in the first place. If reviewers are considered unreliable, they get a backlash from subscribers and commenters. Furthermore, commenters can easily push back on any overly-positive reviews that these reviewers make. Viewers also can "like" or "dislike". Plus, what these videos provide is immediate observation and confirmation of actual performance. If a reviewer encounters a problem, that gets on video and gets reported (as reviewers certainly have). Jared Polin was the first to report the Sony striping situation, and he certainly has been invited to subsequent Sony launches:Jun 26, 2017https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv1JCHfXDdY

You are assuming that most subscribers are knowledgable enough to be able to read between the lines, have the time to read reviews from several sources... have hands on experience with devices being reviewed and will therefore be able to deduct their own conclusions... all the while, they are also making the assumption that everything they read on DPR is 100% objective, with no bias whatsoever.

That's a whole lot of assumptions!

..and still does not answer the elephant in the room:

"To assume that these trips will not skew the revues favorably, at all... is naive at best. The skepticism created by these all expenses paid trips is real and warranted."

..and obviously several people here in this thread are questioning the objectivity of DPR.. and have so in several other threads, hence.. they felt the need to write this piece in the 1st place.

@cbphoto123 - These reviews are a resource. Use them as you please. It's certainly better to have them than to not have them! People can watch them and decide for themselves. Why do you have a problem with people watching and deciding for themselves?

When you say "skew reviews favorably", you seem to imply that reviewers will outright lie about the performance of a product! LOL. The reality is that the performance of a product will still speak for itself, and reviewers will report on that performance, whether it's good or bad. Reviewers certainly have done that. Do you even watch any of these reviews? LOL. Or are you just making assumptions? These reviews all point out good things and bad things about these cameras.

As for influence these events may create, yes, it shows that Sony is serious about their products and has enough confidence in them that they can put these new products through these demanding situations Sony provides. And these events showcase this performance.

@T3.. I will no longer be responding to any of your comments. They are so full of spin, deflection, bias, cherry picking etc... I find it really a pointless endeavor to do anymore of this back and forth with you. Sony shill comes to mind.

@cbphoto123 - "all the while, they are also making the assumption that everything they read on DPR is 100% objective, with no bias whatsoever."

Actually, I think people are smarter than that. I think we all realize, in this day and age, that nothing is ever 100% free of bias, or 100% objective. That's what's so great about video reviews and tests. Video allows us to see performance demonstrated. A lot more can be conveyed, seen, observed in video than simply reading something that someone writes. In the end, people watch these videos and can decide for themselves. You also have to consider the value of quantity. By allowing so MANY reviewers to come to these launches and allowing so MANY of them to try this gear out, it allows people to see a wide variety of opinions and perspectives from a broad range of reviewers.

@cbphoto123 - You just seem to get easily bent out of shape, for whatever reason. Like I said, these reviews are a resource. Watch them, and formulate your own opinion. And don't just watch one review. The web is rife with many reviewers. Don't take any one review as "gospel." But I do think there is a value to the quantity of reviewers that get invited to these events to try out the gear. I think they all keep themselves honest, because they are all competing for the trust of their viewers and competing to produce the best, most objective, most informative review. In this way, competition is a good thing.

@T3: I tend to agree with cbphoto123. The difference with the Andre Agassi advertisement it was a 15 second advert in-between pop-tart adverts during the break in 'Friends'. Meaning, the audience knows upfront that this is an advert.Youtube reviews now also act as infomercials and as cbphoto points out it is both reasonable (and scientific) to question whether the expensive trips result in a form of review bias. For the uninformed who take things as gospel without further research, such 'reviews' provide purchase confirmation for the subscriber. So while there may well be some who unsubscribe organically as you legitimately point out, I feel (based on comments on video threads) that there are also those who simply subscribe as the reviewer has liked their particularly brand of camera! Objectivity is diluted.

@T3: Nevertheless, my original point is not a slam on Sony - to reiterate they have some great products. It's a personal preference that they leave the gimmicks out of product launches (As should other camera manufacturers) so as not to set a trend and require articles such as this from DPreview.

@tomO2013 - I think you guys are making way too much of this. Besides, any time anyone brings up the word "gimmick", I find that to be a red flag. As an early Canon EOS user, I remember all too well Nikonians constantly using the "gimmick" word to dismiss all the things that Canon was doing. Canon USM? Gimmick. Canon IS? Gimmick. Canon electronic connection between camera and lens? Gimmick. Canon adverts? Gimmick. So I find the word "gimmick" as the catchall term used to dismiss, disparage, or attack anything that any other brand is doing. Now, that word is simply being used against the new upstart kid on the block. LOL, funny how history repeats itself. Oh, and another popular theory was that Canon was paying Nikon users to switch to EOS so they could line the sidelines of sporting events with white lenses! Yes, all of this paranoia has happened before.

At the end of the day, the product has to stand up to whatever reviewers put it to. And reviewers will report it, good or bad.

@T3: I'd really like to understand your position a bit more though and your opinion. May I ask - is your preference for the vendor provided holiday trips to exotic locations because the locations themselves make for more interesting review backdrops i.e. the travel part makes it a more engaging review for you?? (legit question)Do you feel that the trips are long enough for reviewers to put out review opinions VS taking the camera and using it in a working situation for a couple of weeks? Finally if you had your flights, meals, accommodation paid for, were nursing a hangover from the free beers the night before and were now getting up to take a free hot air balloon ride over the rocky mountains... would you feel uncomfortable or at the very least have to think twice about how you worded criticism for overheating (e.g a6500, a7riii), grid effects (XT2), oil spatters (D600), lack of mirrorless (e.g. canon)?

@tomO2013 - I think it's all of the above. Some may not be comfortable citing issues with a particular product, but if you have dozens of reviewers at these events, you can rest assured that there WILL be those who WILL report it. And they certainly have. So I don't see it as being a problem. A large quantity of diverse reviewers, all with their own opinions, biases, preferences, and perspectives, basically allows the truth to come out, good or bad. Besides, in today's information age, where anyone and everyone can test a product and put up a Youtube review, I find it odd that people are so hung up about biases that may arise out of these events! You can't keep the truth of a product from getting out. Plus, most of these reviewers going on these events do get gear to test over a longer period of time. These launch events are really for first impressions in a variety of shooting situations in a concentrated, shorter period of time. More in-depth reviews almost always follow.

It's funny because if one wants to do work with a government agency, we are not allowed so much as to buy somebody a beer from the point of view that it could be construed to be unethical and be perceived to bias vendor selection. I guess some of this mindset overlaps into my expectations of car reviewers, camera reviewers etc... Particularly with respect to camera reviewers, some of the aforementioned issues (while mentioned) were a little too glossed over during the quick launch window. A more recent example of this are the continuous af with eye detect issues plaguing the a7riii (check the full frame emount thread and thankfully the most recent A7riii firmware update to fix this problem). This feature was eulogized as a reason to purchase the camera upon launch but this was not caught or mentioned in any review I saw. I'd also comment on choice of language used by certain reviewers which certainly sensationalizes (e.g. A7iii destroys XH1 in low light - Max Yuryev).

In that scenario an uneducated buying public would think hmmm .... it destroys the XH1 in high iso. It does when equalizing exposure - but that's often not pragmatic. Pragmatically videographers often stop down considerably to allow for more DOF in interview situations. Since subjects rarely sit still on the same plane of focus (even in interview scenarios) the laws of equivelance may make the high ISO differences irrelevant in practical shooting situations. I feel this was glossed over so as to make said review theoretical rather than pragmatic and valuable. I mention this not to get into a big debate on specifically Max's review and comparison, but to provide a subjective perspective that the nature of said reviews may actually not be pragmatic. The choice of language too for said reviews after big trips away also cause me some discomfort.

Let me clear I am not questioning Max's ethics or that Sony paid for his comparisons and reviews. Certainly he brought attention to GH5 focus issues and A6500 overheating issues. My point is these have often come down the road after proclaiming camera X on launch day as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Ming Thein had a nice commentary on the nature of launch events and how he is no longer invited to certain launches. I guess the question is this.... if we were to remove the freebies (e.g. hot air balloon rides, helicopter rides etc...) would reviewers be able to do as objective a job as they currently do, or more objective or would it matter?

@Arca455Swiss. "Too happy with my D850 to care one iota about Sony. #neversony"

As a Nikon D810 and a Sony A6300 owner, I always find it interesting when Nikon/Canon users come to a Sony article to troll and tell us they love their product that has nothing to do with the article, then crap on the product in the article. Seems more like you're NOT happy with your D850 and wish you got the A7RIII. Deny it all day, but it's painfully obvious. ;-)

People are too loyal to brands when they should be loyal to themselves. At the en of the day, Sony, Nikon, Canon, FujiFilm and even Sigma have a chance to claim my hard dollars. Offer me a great tool (which is what a camera is) and I'll bite.

It needs no explanation that when you have to write about something every day, it's a godsend that one manufacturer cranks out enough products to fill that space. No explanation needed.

Now, if the Sony well runs dry, what would make interesting reading is the ferocity of Sony users and how upset they get when someone prefers a different product. Honestly, whose business is it if somebody wants to use an SLR or god forbid, a camera not made by Sony?

I remember a post on here months ago where someone had done some research that in the early 2000s or some time hundreds of different cameras were released in the first half of that particular year. Hundreds. That's a lot of reviews and headlines on DPR.

Now it's maybe half a dozen notable new cameras in a 6 month cycle and like all sites DPR needs something to write about and keep sticky viewers, hence the reviews split into chunks released over time etc.

I have no issue with it, but times have changed with far fewer new cameras worth reviewing.

@The Fat Fish. But why? Basically what you're saying is when other manufacturers "catch up" to Sony then they will be talked about. I for one don't respect companies that simply copy the competition for reasons only to "catch up". Canon can catch up to Sony, but unless they release something ground breaking in mirrorless, they will be talked about for 5 minutes or less.

@HenryDJP I'd like to see something ground breaking too but at this point I would settle for copying. I'm realistic in that I don't think a company can release something ground breaking if they can't release something at least on par with the competition.

There's one particular brand that for the past few years has released increasingly underwhelming and in some cases outright disappointing releases. I want to see that trend break.

@The Fat Fish. Actually it's very easy for Canon to make a groundbreaking mirrorless that would outdo Sony. Canon chooses not to. They are stagnant in their ways and sadly, their loyal customers are to blame for it.

There is another reason you've heard so much about Sony: Their USA marketing department has become fantastic at generating buzz. Every product release becomes a major event, with bloggers and vloggers being given free or subsidized trips... Look at the just-completed "Kando" -- 200 "influencers" spending 3 days in Sony nirvana... Of course Chris and Jordan (as 1 example) are going to have an enthusiastic new video showing off Sony's newest camera -- when they just got to play with it for free for a trip with Sony providing models, balloon rides, etc. (Not claiming that Chris and Jordan sacrifice their objectivity... just saying it's going to result in immediate videos hitting the internet, of the camera being used in spectacular settings).

Definitely expensive. But probably pretty effective use of marketing/advertising budget. I see ijustine vlogged to her millions of followers about "Sony camera camp"... people enthusiasts trust like Matt Granger are showing off images from Sony Kando.. Getting positive chemistry with today's "influencers" is probably much more effective than placing some ads in subway stations

"Canon seldom is..."-----Horse manure... How do you think Canon became #1 in the early 80's? Advertising and marketing... Canon paid pros to use their cameras, and then advertised it. (See Walter Iooss, and Manny Rubio)

@zerlings --- They don't pay the press/bloggers or vice versa. But Canon/Nikon tend to just issue a press release.. maybe do a bit of a lecture type presentation. Sony hands out the cameras for use, they set up models and backdrops, they set up professional lighting.. they take the bloggers in dune buggies and hot air balloon rides. So that within days of a camera announcement, the web is filled with amazing photos taken with the new camera by "independent" bloggers, reviewers, etc.

So what's the better solution? A press release with a bunch of advertising language, or putting the cameras into the hands of people with an audience, letting them use the features which are new or improved, and reporting and demonstrating how well they work (or don't)?As a consumer, I'd rather have a huge number of people who have shown that they can be objective and independent while also exhibiting enthusiasm collectively say the same thing about a new product than simply reading a press release from a company. But, maybe I'm the odd man out on that one...

I wasn't saying anything negative about Sony's strategy -- In fact, I applaud it. It works. Just saying it's an extra reason why you seem to hear more about Sony. I'm jealous as I read about Kando... I should have applied. (with my tiny blog, I suppose I would have had a small chance of getting accepted).

Some are more independent than others. As Jason Lanier gushes about Sony, I wouldn’t call him independent. (And he is a Sony artisan).. and considering the nature of the events, I think it’s fair to take the independence of any of the bloggers with a grain of salt. But that’s not a dig at Sony — for Sony, it’s genius marketing.

Chris and Jordan depend on their reviews for their income (mostly). They are not going to jeopardise that. It is how media work. It is why we in the west have a huge propganda machine that we call "free press" but in fact is an extenstion of those in power. Once you start to write critical articles about those in power, you lose your job. Pulitzer price Chris Hedges lost his job at the NYT precisely when he started to show how the USA was involved in war crimes etc. Noam Chomsky has not been mentioned ONCE in that paper since the seventies. For the same reasons. So you learn to go along easily.

No Chris and Jordan relied upon "The Camera Store" for their income, now from Dpreview -- which is owned by Amazon. They claim (and I have no reason to dispute them) that they have always had free editorial discretion. But ultimately, their income was based on the fact that they were SELLING cameras. If they panned 90% of cameras, no matter how honest they were being, the Camera Store would never have paid them. I'm not claiming they are being dishonest -- But they are mostly enthusiastic optimists -- 95% of their reviews are 95% positive... thereby promoting sales overall. If only 50% of their reviews were only 50% positive.. then a camera seller wouldn't be paying them.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

The Edelkrone DollyONE is an app-controlled, motorized flat surface camera dolly. The FlexTILT Head 2 is a lightweight head that extends, tilts and pans. They aren't cheap, but when combined these two products provide easy camera mounting, re-positioning and movement either for video work or time lapse photography.

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is the ultimate sports, action and wildlife camera for professional Micro Four Thirds users. However, it can't quite match the level of AF reliability offered by its full frame competitors.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

We've updated our waterproof camera buying guide with the latest round of rugged compacts, and we've crowned a new winner as the best pick in the category: the Olympus TG-6. That is, unless you happen to find a good deal on the TG-5.

Researchers with the Samsung AI Center in Moscow and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have created a system that transforms still images into talking portraits with as little as a single image.

K&R Photographics, a camera store in Crescent Springs, Kentucky, was robbed by armed men, who not only took thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, but also injured the 70-year-old co-owner of the store.

The new Fujifilm GFX 100 boasts some impressive specifications, including 100MP, in-body stabilization and 4K video. But what's it like to shoot with? Senior Editor Barnaby Britton found out on a recent trip to Florence, Italy.

It's here! The long-awaited next-generation Fujifilm GFX has been officially launched. Click through to learn more about the camera that Fujifilm is hoping will shake up the pro photography market - the GFX100.

We've known about the Fujifilm GFX 100 since last fall, but now it's official: this 102MP medium-format monster will be available at the end of June for $10,000. In addition to its incredible resolution, the camera also has in-body IS, a hybrid AF system, 4K video and a removable EVF.

According to DJI, any drone model weighing over 250 grams will have AirSense Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers installed to help drone operators know when planes and helicopters are nearby.

Chris and Jordan are kicking off a new segment in which they make feature suggestions to manufacturers for the benefit of all photographer-kind. To start things off, they take a look at the humble USB-C port and everything it could be doing for us.

The Olympus TG-5 is one of our favorite waterproof cameras, and the company today introduced the TG-6, a relatively low-key update. New features include the addition of an anti-reflective coating on the sensor, a higher-res LCD, and more underwater and macro modes.

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

We've been playing around with a prototype of the new Peak Design Travel Tripod and are impressed so far: it's incredibly compact, fast to deploy and stable enough for the heaviest bodies. However, the price may turn some away.